In the case of Paul of Samosata, a distinguished Unitarian of the next century, a similar spirit was manifested. You were told, in a former Letter, that when charged with holding certain opinions which he had preached, he solemnly denied the charge; nay, denied it on OATH. Yet, in a little while, he preached the same doctrines again, and was again charged, and again found to deny and equivocate; until, at length, the most decisive measures became necessary to expose his true character, and to exclude him from the sacred office.

When Arius, the father of the Arians, arose, and began to propagate his opinions, he acted a similar part. Finding that these opinions gave offence, and were about to become matter of publick scrutiny, he professed a willingness to receive the popular language concerning them, and wished to have it believed that he differed but little from the body of the church. Much time and ingenuity were employed by the Council which tried him, in attempting to drag him from his lurking places, and to extort from him an explanation of his views. Nor was their purpose accomplished at last without extreme

difficulty. Afterwards, indeed, when his followers, for a time, got the civil power into their own hands, they were ready enough to avow their principles, and to persecute the Orthodox, with far greater fury than ever they had been persecuted themselves.

It is worthy of notice, too, that the same general system of evasion and concealment, was adopted by both Lælius, and Faustus Socinus, in the sixteenth century. The former joined an Orthodox church, and remained in its communion while he lived, passing himself off as an Orthodox man, with the greater part of those with whom he conversed. Nor do his sentiments appear to have been fully disclosed but by his private papers after his decease. The latter, even after he had adopted his Uncle's opinions, and ventured, in a degree, to profess them, practised the most unworthy acts, if the best historians are to be believed, to conceal or to varnish over the most offensive features of his system, and to induce the belief that he differed much less from the Orthodox church than he really did.

Nor has it been otherwise in later times. Dr. Priestley declared, a few years ago, that there were GREAT NUMBERS of persons in the church of England, even among the clergy, who, while they privately held Unitarian opinions, did not scruple in publick to countenance "a mode of "worship, which, if they were questioned about "it, they would not deny to be, according to "their own principles, idolatrous and blaspheIf Newton and Locke WERE Unitarians, they acted, as I have hinted in a former Letter, the same unworthy part. And, if I have not been misinformed, there is too much reason to believe that there are a few persons of a similar character, at this time, in the established church of Scotland.

66

mous!"

The history of American Unitarianism most remarkably accords with these striking facts. The course of conduct pursued by the Unitarian clergy in Massachusetts, for a number of years, was perfectly in character for disciples of the distinguished hereticks already mentioned. Strong suspicions that they were friendly, if not devoted, to the Unitarian System, were entertained for a considerable time, before direct

proof of the fact could be fastened upon them. Charges to that amount were frequently made; but by most of them repelled, as unkind, and even slanderous. They appeared anxious to have it believed that they did not differ materially from the Orthodox around them. And it was not until a publication, made by one of their own friends, beyond the Atlantick, and republished and circulated in this country, had grievously offended them, but effectually disclosed their views, that any considerable number of them consented to take the name of Unitarians. And even now, if I mistake not, while they own the general name, they are, most of them, extremely reserved in communicating their opinions in detail; insomuch that, not only the publick at large, but some of their own people, are entirely uncertain what they believe concerning some of the fundamental doctrines of christianity.

May I not venture to say, too, that some of the Unitarians in your own neighbourhood, are, in some degree, chargeable with the same conduct? You have worshipping assemblies of almost every denomination of christians in your

City. Respecting the religious sentiments of the pastors and teachers of these different de nominations, no one is at a loss. They have not only each publickly and solemnly subscribed a particular creed; but you can hardly go into their respective places of worship, without hearing their peculiar tenets openly and freely proclaimed. But how is it with your Unitarian neighbours? Have they ever told any one, fairly and fully, what they believe? I have attended to their publications, from time to time, when they happened to fall in my way, but have never been able to discover. I have perceived, indeed, that there are many truths, in my view all-important, which they do NOT believe. I have perceived, too, that they are very ZEALOUS in NOT BELIEVING, and are taking unwearied pains to persuade others to follow their example. But which of the various Unitarian systems, differing so widely from each other, they DO embrace, I have no recollection of having ever seen or heard any thing that enabled me to decide. They speak of one writer, of that class, as having gone too far, and of another, as having expressed himself erroneously; yet, after all, they do not inform us whom they are